3 years before they even allowed sale of 3rd party F-16s and a nonstop barrage about how effective the 90s era surplus we sold to Ukraine was gonna magically win the war.
I got banned from NCD for sharing this sentiment saying that there was literally no outcome where the US would allow Ukraine to join NATO, regardless of the acting government.
NCD is basically a NATO fanclub, so that checks out.
thanks for the weapons USA!
Wh… What do you mean they were loans instead of gifts?
Who would’ve thought the government that installed a far right government in a coup wouldn’t have the best intentions?!
See, I can’t tell if you’re talking about America, Russia, or Ukraine.
I get what you’re saying, but to clarify I was speaking of the 2014 Maidan Coup where the US installed a far-right puppet government.
Sure, and Russia had their right-wing coup in 1991, and America is currently doing a self-coup.
People get these confused a lot, but russia has 2 coups in the 90s-
1991 was a failed anti-reformist “left wing” coup that deposed Gorbachev and ended with the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin in power.
1993 was a successful right wing self-coup that allowed Yeltsin to fully consolidate power away from the Russian parliament and towards the presidency. More hamfisted and violent, but in essence similar to what is happening in the US right now
The US was taken over in a coup when Kennedy was assassinated. We’ve been ruled by the CIA & Mossad ever since.
Eh, while they’re part of maintaining the status quo, we’re ruled by capital, and that was true before Kennedy too.
If it was simple mob extortion it would be reasonable. Zelensky originally agreed when he thought the deal would be to pay for American protection.
But Trump wants the money AND wants Ukraine to surrender. Trump is a stupid mob boss who doesn’t understand why “Pay me and I’ll let the rival gang burn your business.” isn’t going to be accepted.
To me, we are back to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, except this time it’s Ukraine instead of Poland and the US replace Nazi Germany…
history truly is a flat circle
How was Libya, a member of the non-aligned movement, a US ally? They literally were part of a group that took neither side in the Cold War.
OBL was never an ally. The US gave money to the Pakistani ISI who gave money to fixers who gave money to OBL. There was no direct channel. He was never an ally and it is a weird assertion to make given the history.
The other two were US allies. Noriega was even friendly with Bush 41. This is just bad history.
As far as OBL goes, the US armed and trained his faction against the soviets during the soviet-afghan war.
Again the CIA gave money to the ISI who gave money to fixers who decided who got money. The US soldiers training them doesn’t make them an ally of the USA.
Ukraine was never an ally of the US either, by that metric.
No, because we actually have negotiated signed treaties with Ukraine. Are ypu confused as to what an ally is?
We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and “signing a treaty” does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don’t count because they were never allies.
Ukraine didn’t cease to exist when the administration was removed. Why would you think that would be the case? They still go by the same name and hold to all their relative treaties other than those involved in their invasion.
We have all sorts of agreements with Ukraine including ones that provide military responses which seems to be a fairly significant sign they are an ally. They are not any more now that the USA is aligned with Russia once again.
Why would you think the Ukrainian government isn’t an ally of the USA? Why would you think the treaties and agreements made by previous administrations aren’t still in place?
And MI6 and the CIA giving info about mutual enemies doesn’t make them an ally.
This image is almost 3 years old already lmao.
If any libs want to learn how tankies see the future you might want to read about the past for once. Pop history doesn’t count.
That’s the kicker, Leftists are correct far more often than liberals yet libs never put 2 and 2 together.
It’s late stage capitalism, bro, revolution is just around the corner, bro.
Repeat for 150 years.
Revolution has already come in many countries, and the US Empire is on its way out. Not sure what your point is, this is correct.
China is ready to take over as the lead capitalist empire.
China is neither Capitalist nor an Empire, so not sure what your point is.
How is China not capitalist? The government keeps it’s capitalist leashed, but they are the driving force are they not?
I’m also not sure how you’d not see them as an empire? It’s a big ole place with a lot of folk.
Only if you ignore all the obvious facts that make them wrong. For example two of the “allies” pictured here were never allies.
Seems to me it’s more saying that NATO’s stated goal for Libya was to “liberate” it, when in reality it was a disaster.
Either way, I’m more interested in continuing the conversations I tried to have with you regarding Marx’s Law of Value and your understanding of how the PRC functions.
Ok but Qaddafi wasn’t an ally of the USA.
Im not engaging in discussions that have zero to do with this thread in this thread.
You don’t have to respond in this thread, I just want you to give an example on the other thread that you say disproves Marx’s Law of Value, and ideally also elaborate on why you think workers in the PRC had it better 2-3 decades ago compared to today.
Qadaffi kinda was between ~2003 and 2011. The CIA even captured and handed over enemies from all over the world, along with providing intelligence about dissidents within Libya.
With rare exception (Israel) America can seem downright schizo from administration to administration.
This was always Ukraine’s fate.
The OG coup happened under the Obama admin, the far-right were forced into government under Trump pt I, Ukraine was forced to sell off state assets and take billions in loans by the Biden admin, and now the US is preparing to pick the bones clean over the next decades.
It’s nice that yall are recognizing that the US isn’t there to help the Ukrainian people now, but we’re all gonna repeat this next war.
I stopped being Charlie Brown falling for the football 23 years go, when I saw that the consent manufacturing for the second Iraq war rested on no hard evidence.
Edit to add that the bone picking has been going on for two years already. Everything must go, including seaports.
Libya was what got me, i was a chump cheering while i watched it on CNN but the more I thought about it the less sense it made then i read the shock docturine and some chomsky. Libya went from the highest score for quality of life in africa to literal slave markets. For what? So some slimy fucking americans can take their resources instead of negotiating for them?
Rome creates a desert and calls it peace.
Isn’t that exactly why Russia invaded to begin with, to steal minerals?
Unlikely. There are and where good economic and political reasons for the war.
The blossoming democracy, freedom and wealth in Ukraine are dangerous to the stability of Russia. They show what could have been.
The annexation of crimes did bring ports to further Russia’s imperial ambition. The agricultural land is of high quality and will secure Russia’s role as a resource exporter after the phase out of fossils. You also need to keep in mind that siberia’s agricultural output is severely at risk from climate change. Ukraine had impressive heavy industry. They took transit tolls for Russian gas which could be saved.
lmfao did you just say Ukraine was blossoming democracy 🤣
real democracy is when all power is concentrated in one person who rules for 20+ years at a time and criticizing him is highly correlated with falling out of a window. There is absolutely no possible nuance.
I believe this is what’s called whataboutism in liberal parlance
what is relevant is the difference exists, and is a trend that can easily be extrapolated into “blossoming democracy”, especially in the minds of the russian people.
What is relevant is that you made a non sequitur here. However, the actual difference that exists is that Putin actually won elections and has popular support in Russia. Meanwhile, western puppet in Ukraine cancelled elections for obvious reasons. Try to put a bit more work into your trolling to make it less obvious.
Your unwillingness to understand does not a non sequitur make.
Russia is a huge country has plenty of minerals and a low population. Trading people for more minerals isn’t exactly in Russia’s interest.
These minerals threaten the Russian economy and their soft power over other European nations. If Germany can get their fuel supply from Ukraine rather than Russia that weakens Russia
One problem with this theory is that Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine trading with Europe until the coup in 2014 happened.
They were fine with Ukraine trading with other European nations but weren’t ok with them not wanting to be under Russian control.
Remember Ukraine traded in nukes to get protection from Russian imperialism.
They weren’t under Russian control. What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there. Incredible how trolls now twist this to be backwards.
No, Russia stated that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, so their goal is to either prevent membership or demillitarize Ukraine entirely, and they have the means and will to continue until those objectives are met. That’s really all it boils down to.
The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, they’ve called NATO membership for Ukraine a “red line”—just as they’ve claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.
Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russia’s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothing—no matter the cost in human lives—to achieve them.
Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation’s existence.
Of course, Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation—just as imperialist ambitions in Russia predate Putin. But history isn’t an excuse for present-day aggression. Whatever the past, the reality now is that Putin’s actions are not about NATO; they are about control, power, and his own legacy. He isn’t reacting to a genuine security threat—he is manufacturing one to justify his war.
NATO expansion didn’t force Russia to invade Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of joining NATO when the full-scale invasion began. Putin made that decision because he saw Ukraine slipping out of his influence, not because of any immediate NATO threat. His goal isn’t just to stop NATO expansion; it’s to erase Ukrainian sovereignty entirely.
Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just vibes? You can dislike or hate Putin while also believing that Occam’s Razor applies, and having a hostile Millitary Alliance on Russia’s doorstep could be seen as aggression by NATO towards Russia from the Russian POV.
I get what you’re saying about perspectives, and I’ll take your question in good faith. Let’s establish some key points:
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO’s founding principle is collective defense—Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, NATO has never preemptively attacked Russia or any other non-member state. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11.
If NATO were aggressive, we’d have seen it by now. NATO expanded eastward because former Soviet-controlled states wanted to join. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia’s existence, why hasn’t it attacked Russia in the 30+ years since the USSR collapsed? There have been countless opportunities if that were NATO’s intent. But that’s not what has happened—because NATO isn’t an offensive force.
Putin’s “perspective” is selective and self-serving. Russia itself has attacked multiple neighboring countries—Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine (multiple times), and intervened in Syria. Meanwhile, NATO has not attacked Russian territory, nor has it forced any nation to join. So when Putin claims NATO is the aggressor, he is projecting—using the idea of a NATO “threat” as an excuse to justify his own expansionist wars.
Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as a real country. He has said outright that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” and that Ukraine exists only because of Soviet mistakes. That isn’t about NATO—it’s about his imperial ambitions. If NATO weren’t the excuse, he’d find another one.
So yes, Russia might perceive NATO as aggressive, but that doesn’t make it true. A defensive alliance accepting new members isn’t aggression. An authoritarian leader launching wars to reclaim “lost” lands is.
NATO is a millitary alliance of Imperialist states formed directly to exert pressure on the USSR, and now retains that hostile history with the current Russian Federation. It was led by Nazis including Adolf Heusinger and has performed hostile, anticommunist terrorist operations such as Operation Gladio in order to combat Communism and exert power to maintain Imperialism.
Your analysis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is purely a character analysis of Putin, and not the legitimate material interests of all countries involved. This form of “Great Man Theory” is genuinely a myopic form of geopolitical analysis that rarely gets at the truth behind why events happen, and instead decides to look at history as though it’s the whims of a few individuals and not the billions of regular people.
This all starts when it becomes clear Ukraine has mineral rights that threaten Russia’s ability to lean on Western Europe to the extent it does/did.
The NATO claims are just cover. Even if they were true Russia has zero right to determine Ukraine’s future.
It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism while attempting to claim any kind of morality.
No, it started a lot longer ago than that. Russia has maintained for decades now that NATO encirclement is a red line, and that included Ukraine. I’m not “endorsing” anything here, but explaining the cause of the war. Russia is interested in having a buffer zone against NATO, the US is interested in profiteering in the form of loans and mineral rights, and the ruling class of Ukraine is interested in gettting rich off of sending young people to die in a preventable war.
This isn’t a war of “righteousness” or anything, it isn’t good vs evil, but 3 countries with different interests and the Ukrainian people ending up with by far the shortest end of the stick.
It’s hilarious that you accuse the US and Ukraine of wanting to get rich from mineral rights, but you won’t accuse Russia of the same thing. In reality there will be rich people in each of those countries wanting to profit from minerals.
Sure, there are likely people in Russia that want access to Ukrainian minerals, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be the primary cause of the invasion to begin with.
Maybe the primary cause was Putin’s megalomania, or indeed megalomania among quite a few Russian elites.
I don’t believe in “Great Man Theory” as a useful method of analysis of historical trends. Material conditions and political economic factors play a far greater role in historical events than the individual whims of leaders.
To be clear Im talking about many of the other leftists that are celebrating Putin’s invasions/actions not just you specifically
Russia has no right to demand a buffer zone and they have had plans to retake Ukraine for years as you always had that cadre of nutjobs going back to Zhirinovsky that would comment on the need to rebuild the empire. I believe they just found the right circumstances to take advantage of the situation.
No war is about morality and the only side with anything resembling a moral claim at all are those invaded.
I don’t see what discussing the morality of the invasion will practically solve, nor the insistence on Russia not actually caring about NATO and instead wanting minerals. The reason it’s important to accurately identify the cause of war is so that we can find a way to end it with the least harm possible, as it stands right now Ukraine is getting the rug pulled from under them and will be subject to US loans and Russian victory, the worst outcome for them, period.
Im not saying Russia doesn’t care about NATO. I have stated that it does not matter what Russia’s position is as they have no right to determine what Ukraine does despite the intense entitlement throughout Russia
You said it was a cover in order to grab minerals in Ukraine. I disagree, and that fundamentally changes how we analyze how to end the war.
No, it started a lot longer ago than that
You can listen to Putin himself and he goes back pretty far in history.
I could, but I think it’s more important to look at what’s actually truly relevant. NATO/Russian relations don’t go nearly that far back.
Putin is the Czar. What’s on his matters most. Everything else is secondary or incidental.
Regardless of what Putin personally wants, Russia acts in the interests of its material conditions. Putin is a Nationalist, so his interests in maintaining a buffer from NATO generally align with the Russian public.
It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism
Leftist: “Damn, this war is killing so many people and wasting so many natural resources. Everything in the region is getting worse the longer it drags on. It needs to stop.”
Radical Centrist: “You only want to stop the war because you love Hitler.”
Leftist: “Also, Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza.”
Radical Centrist: “More antisemitism! You’re only proving my point.”
Leftist: “War is Bad.”
Radical Centrist: “Just what a Fascist would say.”
Your reply is a straw man.
Why do you think that what Russia says is true?
Russia said they didn’t poison Alexei Navalny in 2020, but they did. They said they didn’t kill Alexander Litvinenko, and they said they didn’t poison Sergei Skripal, but they did both of those things.
I trust Occam’s Razor, this is consistent with what has happened in the past regarding Russia/NATO relations since NATO’s formation as an anticommunist millitary alliance against the USSR, a history continued into the modern Russian Federation even after the adoption of Capitalism.
Occam’s razor would dictate that Russia is probably lying if they say they’re not interested in Ukrainian minerals, given that the Kremlin has lied about pretty much everything for a long time.
Putin is even saying he wants to sell minerals from Russian-occupied Ukraine to the US. Clearly he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine.
Occam’s razor doesn’t mean “the view that contradicts my prejudices the least”. What you consider more or less likely has jack shit to do with it, learn what terms mean.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? Why do you believe Putin when he says he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine? Wouldn’t your belief in Russia as only lying mean that he actually doesn’t want to sell Ukrainian minerals to the US?
Russia can and does lie. It also tells the truth. Analyzing historical trends and motivations is important for figuring out what is actually going on, rather than just assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says. That’s not Occam’s Razor, that’s analytical nihilism.
I didn’t say Russian only lies. I said Russia “has lied about pretty much everything for a long time”. That is not the same thing.
assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says
I’m not just assuming the opposite of Russia’s statements. I’m drawing a best guess conclusion based on two premises:
- Russia has a history of lying about its true intentions and actions
- Russian oligarchs and elites would absolutely be interested in mineral wealth, given their history of megalomania
I think it’s likely that mineral wealth would have been part of the Kremlin’s motivation to invade. Along with general megalomania and irredentism.
Certainly you can see how the statement that “Russia has lied about pretty much everything” can be seen as “Russia always lies,” right?
Either way, I still don’t see why NATO expansionism would not be the primary factor, given that that has been a huge part of Russian geopolitics since back when they were still Socialist. Mineral access could be a secondary factor, but that doesn’t explain minerals being absent from the peace deal proposed by Russia near the beginning of the war, which instead focused on NATO.
It seems more likely that as Ukraine and the US rejected the Russian-proposed peace deals, Russia has seen that as an additional opportunity to recoup some of the cost of the war through going for minerals as a secondary objective.
